tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post2210651822242067577..comments2017-08-16T09:37:21.139-04:00Comments on Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report: PlaNYC 1950: why parking shouldn't be required at apartment projects like Atlantic YardsNorman Oderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07618087999719667586noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post-24555216415176035792007-12-24T12:41:00.000-05:002007-12-24T12:41:00.000-05:00Note the opportunity with respect to the special H...Note the opportunity with respect to the special Hudson Yards District. The Hudson Yards District together with the whole area around it is currently planned to be developed at a very high density far surpassing that of the current surrounding areas of midtown Manhattan. Just the 26.2 acres of the proposed Hudson Yards is supposed to contain about 12 million square feet, the maximum permitted under the zoning, and a small fraction of what is planned for the area (the Times editorial mentioned below seems to have a mistake in the acreage mentioned). Yet, the City is skimping on plans for mass transit in the area as yesterday’s editorial in the Times criticized:<BR/><BR/>“Do Right by the No. 7 Extension” <BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/nyregionopinions/No7.html<BR/><BR/>As the Times editorial lays out, the City is planning an extension of the No. 7 subway line, but the city is panning only one stop at the end of the 1.5 mile extension. Right now it is not willing to fund building necessary for a second stop along the at 10th Avenue and 41st Street. At the unprecedented densities planned the second stop is surely the thing to do. The argument is not even whether the second stop should be built but whether a shell for its eventual construction should be built which would cost $450 million. The city is talking about a compromise where it would pay for half of this amount hoping the MTA would come up with the balance.<BR/><BR/>So as noted in the AYR post, according to the city zoning handbook, the high-density residential development requirement of 0.4 spaces per dwelling unit typically waived in Manhattan Core is NOT being waived in the Special Hudson Yards District where, based on the proposed greater density it should also be waived. The only argument not to waive it is if adequate mass transportation was weirdly not provided to this extra dense area.<BR/><BR/>Solutions? So what if:<BR/> 1. As discussed in the post, the parking requirement was waived and instead contributions were advanced toward funding the subway stop.<BR/> 2. The City Council simply recaptured the boondoggle funds from Atlantic Yards so that they could be applied to this worthy mass transit project instead- Then rather than being a shortage of subway funds there would be a surplus. And it would make sense to be putting more density where new mass transit is being built rather than tapping into lines near Atlantic Yards that are recognized as overburdened and where there are no plans to build extra capacity. The West Side also has an advantage in that more people can walk to work from there both because it is proposed to be more mixed use and because of its location.<BR/> 3. And if the MTA were allowed to rebid Atlantic Yards it would collect more money from a new developer (rather than being forced to continue to subsidize Ratner). That could well be enough to meet the half share of the $450 Million the City is requesting of it.MDDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16693635186364315879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post-76249164740753641312007-12-24T09:36:00.000-05:002007-12-24T09:36:00.000-05:00Two things I wanted to add:Last month the Center f...Two things I wanted to add:<BR/><BR/>Last month the Center for an Urban Future <A HREF="http://www.nycfuture.org/images_pdfs/pdfs/RecapturingSuburbanShoppers.pdf" REL="nofollow">released a report</A> about attracting suburban shoppers to NYC neighborhoods. One of their big recommendations is adding more parking so that the suburbanites can drive comfortably to shop in the city. Essentially, they are telling the neighborhoods to give up their urban future for this potential econcomic stimulus.<BR/><BR/>The planned Silvercup West project - and in fact most of the projects in Queens West - have way too much parking. Go to any planning meeting in Queens and you'll hear politicians and planners crowing about how much parking they're building.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post-2166328738533904652007-12-24T08:43:00.000-05:002007-12-24T08:43:00.000-05:00Great post! The ESDC and the EDC seem to generall...Great post! The ESDC and the EDC seem to generally be behind the times on this one, and Doctoroff, for all his environmental lip service, has not accomplished any change in parking policy.<BR/><BR/>In addition to all the unnecessary Atlantic Yards parking, there's also the ill-conceived and unpopular Duffield Street project and the BAM "cultural district" garage. There are similar antiquated parking schemes at Yankee Stadium and that place where the Mets will play, and in the plans for Hunters Point South and Willets Point.<BR/><BR/>In his suggestion for decking the Sunnyside Yards several years ago, Garvin himself pointed out - with apparent satisfaction - that the difference in elevation between ground level and the most likely deck level would allow almost unlimited space for parking garages. For decades, Queens Community Board 1 has listed as its primary transportation goal the creation of a new parking facility on a deck over the Grand Central Parkway. Any increase in parking in Western Queens would be a bad idea, but these proposals would be an unmitigated traffic disaster if they were ever implemented.<BR/><BR/>This issue is probably one of the most significant envirnomental issues facing our city today. Thanks for highlighting it.Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.com